[Marxism] Not a conspiracy theorist, but a troll

Joaquín Bustelo jbustelo at bellsouth.net
Sun Jul 11 14:21:34 MDT 2010

On 7/11/2010 1:18 PM, brad wrote:
 > Yes, I know that sealing a well does not mean the reservoir is
 > lost...but it does require redrilling the well.  But BP won't have to
 > do that after their TWO 'relief wells' are finished being drilled (and
 > then they can repair the original well to have three wells!).  It
 > doesn't really make my argument fall apart as I never argued that they
 > would lose the reserve, only the well.

However, the cost of the spill so far has been more than $3 billion. The 
final cost is projected to be *at least* in the tens of billions -- the 
compensation fund alone is $20 billion. The cost to stockholders in lost 
market capitalization has been up to $100 billion, half what the company 
was worth.

The cost of drilling a deep water well is in the high tens of millions 
of dollars. Three wells implies a cost of $200-$300 million. Brad's 
theses is that to save $200-$300 million dollars, BP is willing to incur 
costs 100 times the savings.

Brad again:
> I never said there was a 'secret scheme' I said the exact opposite:
> that it was open and publicly documented that not only BP but
> government and non government experts have said this would work.  Why
> do you and others insist on attacking me with hyperbole?  If my
> arguments are so weak, why can't you debate them honestly?

Brad says he doesn't postulate a secret conspiracy because --he claims-- 
it is public knowledge that blowing up the well would work. However, his 
claim all along has been that BP and Obama secretly decided NOT to stop 
the leak by blowing up the well, and have suppressed information that 
blowing up the well would work so people don't realize they made that 
secret decision.

> Also, on technical issues I have also stated, again and again, that I
> am putting forth a politicial position more than a detailed plan.  To
> focus on the fact that we don't know if this will work is to focus on
> the technological limits pushed by BP, Obama and the MSM.

His first sentence is here is bullshit. His argument rests ENTIRELY on 
"technical issues," the idea that blowing up the well is a can't-miss 
proposition that BP and Obama have secretly decided not to use.

And then he says, but don't talk about whether blowing it up would 
actually work. That would mean "to focus on the technological limits 
pushed by BP, Obama and the MSM."

On its face the statement is absurd. How exactly does a presidential 
photo-op or a TV report LIMIT what a technology --using explosives-- can 
do a mile underwater? But of course that's not what Brads means at all. 
He means that Obama, BP and the MSM are working together to keep us from 
knowing that blowing up the well would work because BP wants to spare 
itself the expense of drilling a new well.

That's Brad's whole theses: that there is a conspiracy so BP can spend 
billions instead of millions.

I'm sorry, but nobody is THAT stupid. This guy is just a troll.


More information about the Marxism mailing list